Hi Rodger
When faced with this question, I would search for the meaning of
"separation" and investigate what separation is and what it does and
see if it has to do with the fact I cannot find the "right" definition
that can fit That, the elusive, the un-definable etc etc. And, very
probably, I will come up with the answer that I live in a world of
"separation" thus,limited to how my mind defines it.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
And to better explain my other post:
What is to know is not the object of the knowledge i.e. I know this or
that (this or that would be the objects in question) but it is the
realization that there is no subject i.e. I know this ("I" would be
the subject) to know anything. There is no one to know anything.
Knowledge happens i.e. it is known/realized that it is as it is.
This realization/knowledge does not reside in a "me" i.e. inside a
body. It does not have a location. It is not inside a something or
outside a something. Which is why it is said to be here (here meaning
everywhere and anywhere).
The knowledge in question is more of a not-knowing, i.e. the
realization that one knows nothing. And,when one does realize the
nothing-ness of things, then, the impersonality of the knower is also
known.
I hope I have not confused you even more...
Kali
On 29 Lug, 20:04, Rodger <[email protected]> wrote:
> No,sorry,Kali.I'm not making much sense of what you said.
>
> Even if,as you say,there is no one to know anything,still(and as you
> say)knowledge resides.This residing knowledge...where does it reside,
> or in what,or as what?
> And,is not this residing knowledge a something...a knowledge of
> something?
>
> On Jul 29, 9:57 am, Mahakali <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What is needed to know is not "something" like some knowledge of
> > something , but, paradoxically, the knowledge resides in the fact that
> > there is no one to know anything. It is not the object that is being
> > sought but, instead, it is the absence of the subject that represents
> > the "knowledge" itself.
>
> > Does it make sense?
>
> > I hope it is clear enough...
>
> > Kali
>
> > On 29 Lug, 16:46, Rodger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Kali, if one is not able to define that how does one know that that
> > > is?
>
> > > On Jul 29, 6:37 am, Mahakali <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > The un-definable.
>
> > > > I know it may come across as another clichès but none has ever been
> > > > able to define that. Only words such as the Truth, Presence ,
> > > > Awareness, the unspeakable, the open secret, the elusive
> > > > obvious ..and other types of paradoxes which can only point to That.
>
> > > > The problem with That is that the moment you word it it has already
> > > > changed. That is the nature of what is here and now.
>
> > > > Kali
>
> > > > On 29 Lug, 13:29, Rodger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > How would you define that?- Nascondi testo citato
>
> > > - Mostra testo citato -- Nascondi testo citato
>
> - Mostra testo citato -
